why? i thought, from my years of reading fark comments, that all hollywood films were either cheap crappy remakes of foreign films no one in america would ever have heard of let alone cared about, or crappy remakes/reboots of older hollywood movies...many of which were already originally remakes of foreign films no one in america would ever have heard of let alone cared about.

OK, now, this is odd:Cowboys and Aliens (2011)Harrison Ford as the iron-fisted Colonel Dolarhyde and Daniel Craig as a stranger with no memory of his past in Cowboys & Aliens.Timothy White / Universal Studios and DreamWorks IISource: Scott Mitchell Rosenberg's graphic novelBudget: $163 millionDomestic Gross: $100 millionPost-Mortem: The title seemed like a no-brainer, and yet the movie failed to deliver even on the fun promised by those three words. Even with $75 million in overseas grosses, the movie failed to recoup its costs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the film cost $163 million, made $100 million domestically, and an additional $75 million overseas, then it made $175 million total, which, last time I checked, was more than $163 million.

I actually liked the film, btw, but it's not really sequel material anyway. There really wasn't anywhere to go with it, except having more alienses invade the West.

MithrandirBooga:I would have replaced John Carter with Godzilla (1998). That movie was clearly designed to be turned into a sequel, with that ridiculous teaser ending. Thankfully it never happened.

John Carter wasn't terrible. It was decent, and a lot better than most crap that has endless sequels these days.

I watched JC on afternoon. It was much better than people seemed to give it credit for. Not a *great* movie by any stretch, but certainly on par with a lot of movies of it's genre that have done better. The problems were with marketing I feel.

That was one for me as well, I think I made it 20 minutes in and then went to the front desk and asked for my money back. They gave me a gift card for later.I think I took it back later that month and watched The Aviator. Not nearly as bad, but I kinda wished they have just given me my money back.

MithrandirBooga:I would have replaced John Carter with Godzilla (1998). That movie was clearly designed to be turned into a sequel, with that ridiculous teaser ending. Thankfully it never happened.

It's always been my contention that the 1998 film is better than 90% or more of the Japanese versions. Better acting, better story, more scientifically believable, better special effects, and a recognition that Gojira is just an animal acting on it's own native instinct and intelligence, not some supernatural force.

And I'll take the raptor-like baby Zillas over Minilla any farkin' day of the week.

MithrandirBooga:bungle_jr: also, listing a movie that was released THIS YEAR in a listicle about being spared a sequel? come on! they could be working on a sequel that we haven't even heard of yet!

Lone Ranger bombed so hard it may have repercussions on Johnny Depp's career. There's no way there's going to be a sequel. It lost almost $200m

according to wikipedia (yes, consider the source...but i really don't care to do any further research for this movie i don't care to watch) the film had a budget of $225-250million and a box office gross of $260million+. i have no idea if this includes dvd rentals/sales, etc, or if it includes movie tie-ins, toys, etc. but at any rate, it at least broke even, according to this stat.

BafflerMeal:I watched JC on afternoon. It was much better than people seemed to give it credit for. Not a *great* movie by any stretch, but certainly on par with a lot of movies of it's genre that have done better. The problems were with marketing I feel.

The issue with JC is that it never made you want to care about the characters, it was essentially Dances With Wolves in Space

IdBeCrazyIf:BafflerMeal: I watched JC on afternoon. It was much better than people seemed to give it credit for. Not a *great* movie by any stretch, but certainly on par with a lot of movies of it's genre that have done better. The problems were with marketing I feel.

The issue with JC is that it never made you want to care about the characters, it was essentially Dances With Wolves in Space

Speed Racer was awesome! My nephew and I watch it all the time. Saw it in theaters day 1 and bought the DvD day 1 as well. Then again, I have always been a Speed Racer fan so that would be no surprise. I want another Speed Racer movie. It was very well done and kept the campiness of the original show.

wildcardjack:That's because Mars sucks. When will studio executives learn not to work with anything dealing with Mars, it just won't work. No matter how good the book, Mars fails with the populace.

BafflerMeal:I watched JC on afternoon. It was much better than people seemed to give it credit for. Not a *great* movie by any stretch, but certainly on par with a lot of movies of it's genre that have done better. The problems were with marketing I feel.

wildcardjack is sort of right. Mars holds no interest to the general population. A movie about/on Mars is just generally not going to see the returns they want if they spend blockbuster-style money on it. John Carter would have worked a lot better if it were a niche film with a lower budget and a more focused audience.

However this is becoming an increasingly large problem with most blockbusters nowadays. 3 of the top 10 movie flops of all time were released just this summer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_bombs#Biggest_box_of fi ce_bombs ); Hollywood has got to stop spending so much money on gigantic films and spending money on smaller niche films. This idea that every movie has to appeal to everyone is watering down films so much that it's actually turning off most viewers.

dittybopper:OK, now, this is odd:Cowboys and Aliens (2011)Harrison Ford as the iron-fisted Colonel Dolarhyde and Daniel Craig as a stranger with no memory of his past in Cowboys & Aliens.Timothy White / Universal Studios and DreamWorks IISource: Scott Mitchell Rosenberg's graphic novelBudget: $163 millionDomestic Gross: $100 millionPost-Mortem: The title seemed like a no-brainer, and yet the movie failed to deliver even on the fun promised by those three words. Even with $75 million in overseas grosses, the movie failed to recoup its costs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the film cost $163 million, made $100 million domestically, and an additional $75 million overseas, then it made $175 million total, which, last time I checked, was more than $163 million.

I actually liked the film, btw, but it's not really sequel material anyway. There really wasn't anywhere to go with it, except having more alienses invade the West.

Rule of thumb is you always divide by two. About half the gross goes to the theaters, distributors, etc. So a $163 million movie needs to make $326 million to be successful for the studio.

PIP_the_TROLL:MithrandirBooga: I would have replaced John Carter with Godzilla (1998). That movie was clearly designed to be turned into a sequel, with that ridiculous teaser ending. Thankfully it never happened.

Actually, it did.

It lead directly to this:

[www.tvshowsondvd.com image 375x504]

... and it was actually pretty good.

Because that show put the God back into Zilla and made him Godzilla again!

IdBeCrazyIf:BafflerMeal: I watched JC on afternoon. It was much better than people seemed to give it credit for. Not a *great* movie by any stretch, but certainly on par with a lot of movies of it's genre that have done better. The problems were with marketing I feel.

The issue with JC is that it never made you want to care about the characters, it was essentially Dances With Wolves in Space

The other Dances With Wolves in Space made a metric ass ton of money. Or was it Ferngully/Last Samurai in Space.